Frank commentary from an unretired call girl

The Eye of the Beholder

In the discussion following last Tuesday’s column, there was a subthread which began with this comment by reader “M” in which she said that even though she might have been a bit put off by the joke which caused so much controversy (if you haven’t read that column, it’s best you do so before proceeding), she certainly didn’t approve of the way Dr. Greenfield was treated. I agreed with her, saying “Bad taste isn’t a crime, nor should it result in a professional death sentence.” Reader Tony replied to that, saying “I do not see what he wrote as tasteless or vulgar. I mean, if he had given some lurid depiction of a graphic sexual act that ended with a specific delivery method of giving semen to a woman, ok, that would be vulgar.” I replied to him within that commentary, but I’d like to expand on that answer because the issues raised in my reply relate not just to the specific subject of that column, but the whole issue of prohibitionism.

Every person is an individual, with individual tastes, preferences, likes and dislikes. We all have our turn-ons, turn-offs, comfort zones and pet peeves, and though some of these are influenced by gender, cultural background and life experiences, others are innate and often inexplicable. I don’t have a clue as to why I’m so averse to green, leafy vegetables; my sisters aren’t and my brother loves them. I was raised in the same house and fed the same foods, yet there’s something in my brain or biochemistry which causes me to find spinach, cabbage and the like so nauseating that even the odor of them cooking causes me to lose my appetite. Clearly, it isn’t the fault of the foods; millions of people eat and enjoy them regularly. My dislike for them is my problem, and I have no right to demand that others stop cooking or eating them merely because of my individual preference. At the same time I have the right to have that preference, and one really easy way to wear out your welcome is to start lecturing me on how even though I’m extremely healthy and the perfect weight for my height and build, I “should” eat green leafy vegetables because they have some esoteric health benefit which I have yet to miss in over four decades of avoiding them.

I found Dr. Greenfield’s joke just a tad annoying; not nearly as annoying as rap or stepping in chewing gum, and not remotely as annoying as getting stuck behind someone who thinks it’s reasonable to drive at twenty miles per hour below the posted speed limit, but slightly irritating nonetheless. That’s because even before I turned pro it always annoyed me when men try to pitch sex as something the man “gives” to the woman rather than vice-versa. But like my aversion to greens, this reaction is something resident in me rather than in the comment. The modern “Catechism of Offense” to which neofeminists subscribe, however, teaches that offensiveness is a property of the offending person or object rather than of the one who is offended; in other words, if a flower is yellow and you hate yellow, it’s the flower’s fault for “offending” you. And if a dog’s breath smells bad, that “badness” comes from the dog rather than your intolerance for biological odors. Once one accepts the absurd initial premise, attacking the offender for “causing” offense is completely logical, and all neofeminist legislation deriving from that assumption makes perfect sense; e.g., since a man who compliments a woman is responsible for her unpredictable reaction he should be punished by a “sexual harassment” accusation, and since the very existence of porn and prostitution offend some women they must be banned. It doesn’t matter that neofeminists don’t know any individual whore from Eve; it is her fault they are upset by the concept of prostitution, so she must suffer the consequences.

Of course, any sensible person recognizes that my aversion to spinach, depictions of male homosexuality and “I’m gonna give it to you” comments derive from my personality and not from the things I’m repelled by, so I therefore have no right to force cafeterias to stop cooking spinach, gay dudes to stop making porn or doctors to refrain from spooge jokes. By the same token neofeminists have no right to demand the prohibition of prostitution, teetotalers have no right to stop others from drinking or doping, fanatical Christians have no right to stop others from having kinky sex, and legislatures certainly don’t have the right to send armed thugs to stop anyone from doing any of the above. Though the Enlightenment Police may disagree, any individual’s right to dislike something is just as valid as his right to like something else; he even has the right to talk about it, to insult people who do whatever it is he’s opposed to, to tell them they’re going to Hell or to set up sick websites detailing how disgusting he finds whatever-it-is. But his rights stop where others’ start: As soon as he moves beyond mere talk to action (and that includes demanding someone be fired or agitating politicians to make laws against whatever consensual behavior offends him), he has infringed on others’ rights and therefore committed an act of evil. This is what the principle of tolerance is all about: You don’t have to like me or what I do or say, and vice versa. But neither one of us has the right to control what the other wants to do with his body, money or time, no matter how badly it offends us.

55 Responses

I’d like to take it a step further and state that neither does anyone have the right to purposefully offend or piss off another person. Respecting your right to not like spinach, I shouldn’t purposefully serve it to you at dinner knowing that you don’t like it even though I have a right to serve it.

Respecting each other and their feelings about a certain subject should be foremost. It’s like those Jesus people who know I’m pantheist and yea, ok they respect my right to believe in that but they still try to shove scripture down my throat.

The only problem there is that word “purposefully”. Sometimes intent can be awfully hard to prove, which is why federal prosecutors have largely abandoned worrying about it (and judges play along) by claiming that the FACT of a crime is enough to convict, and the juries are routinely instructed not to consider whether the accused intended to break the law. The reason for this? Why, because that pesky mens rea thing was lowering the conviction rate, and we can’t have that!

“Sexual harassment” suits nearly ALWAYS claim that the “harassment” was intentional, but you and I both know that it’s as easy to inadvertently offend a woman who wants to be offended as it is to inadvertently step on an ant…and in neither case does one generally realize one has done it.

Leafy greens do have health benefits. But as a grown woman, you don’t have to do everything that is good for you. Also, there other ways to get the health benefits (though you don’t have to do any of those other things, either).

Natto has health benefits. I just ate natto today. I’ll try various ways to eat it until my supply runs out, but if I don’t find one I like, I’ll have to either get my healthy on some other way or do without.

Laura, I’m going to introduce you to Natto tomorrow. Maybe Saturday. I don’t insist that you eat it, of course, but I am going to show it to you. I suspect you will find it as appetizing as fish sauce, but perhaps you will surprise me.

But yeah, if I’m offended by something (and I am), that’s me. It may be reasonable to be offended, but still, it’s me. And to tell the truth, being offended isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

Personally, I believe the concept of being offended was invented as a means to suppress activity or expression people don’t like. Of course, it’s merely coincidental that the the activity or expression very often just happens to be coming from someone the offended person doesn’t like or feels threatened by.

Claiming to be offended gives you leverage. It gives you immense power and it’s easy to do. And no one can question it. It’s like saying you have a backache (or a headache).

I never thought much about it until sexual harassment lawsuits became a major national pastime. Suddenly, what you said at work could get you fired even if the company didn’t want to fire you, because civility in the workplace became a federal mandate rather than a matter of culture, manners, or corporate policy.

I was surprised to learn, at least back then, that what constituted harassment was mostly a matter of a person simply claiming to be offended. After all, everyone has different thresholds at which they feel offended, so how can anyone else possibly define it for another. I think some degree of reality has now crept into the rules, but it’s too late. Like it or not, women are viewed as a threat by men in the work place, warranting guarded behavior and immediate and profuse backpedaling if they feel like they have pissed a woman off.

It doesn’t even take an accusation of sexual harassment. A woman can merely express to her boss that someone gives her the creeps or made an off-color joke and the company may feel obligated, to limit future liability, to investigate and note the complaint in that person’s record. And, there is nothing that can kill a man’s career quite like a mention of sexual harassment in a man’s personnel file. You might as well be a leper or a pedophile (which ever is worse, these days).

Whether you agree with the new workplace sensitivities toward women or not, the concept of being offended essentially fueled the transformation almost overnight. Words have been elevated to the power of sticks and stones by Congressional decree.

Dear Dave, speaking of the workplace, the political correctness in it is just getting sicker and sicker. I could give example from my current job and pretty much every other job I’ve had! It’s also so sad and disgusting that if people are attracted to a co-worker, they’re literally afraid to ask the person out! They run the risk of the person being a ###*** and claiming harrassment. So sick and sad (and also frustrating for the person who’s attracted to another 1).

My husband tells me that in his (male-dominated) industry, no man with any sense will ever consent to be alone with a female co-worker in a room, car or even elevator because they want to ensure there are witnesses to any interaction they have with her. Thanks to neofeminists, prudent men are now forced to treat women as though we’re either radioactive or contagious. :-(

Maggie, that is absolutely correct. Bosses will not even give women their annual performance review women with the door shut. I know women who think nothing of going directly to HR to complain about their boss if they don’t get their way, knowing the leverage they have because they are women. I also know women who have filed lawsuits, either for revenge or to get their way.

Since I’ve been out of the employment world since 1995, the first time I ever encountered that firsthand was when I consulted with a plastic surgeon for my boob job the first week or so of 2000, and he wouldn’t come into the room with me until the nurse accompanied him. I had been alone many times with my male gynecologist, but he had known me since the late ’80s so there was trust there. But the plastic surgeon was the first new doc I had in a while, and it was a weird, sad feeling to think that he not only didn’t but couldn’t trust me. :-(

This is much the way men are around children. Any man with a lick of sense is literally afraid of children. I sure as hell wouldn’t let myself be alone with a child who’s parents weren’t very well known to me (basically, my sisters).

This isn’t because I’m afraid that I’m going to give in to some temptation and molest the kid; children just don’t appeal to me sexually. Nor is it because I’m afraid that the kid will make up some accusation. No, I’m afraid that some adult will decide, all on his own, that something inappropriate must have happened. My protestations of innocence would be worthless. The child’s assurance that nothing wrong happened would be just as worthless. Even a very honest child can be made to lie by coercive adults, especially if the adults think that they are doing the right thing by children everywhere.

I’d rather square off with a man who can whup me that be alone with a strange child. If the other man is satisfied to win a fight, then I’m fine once the bruises heal.

Laura, that fits in perfectly with the new paranoia between the sexes in what, under ideal circumstances should be an atmosphere of cooperation and shared goals. I know a couple that kept their relationship secret from almost everyone until suddenly we found out they were married. And I was pretty close friends with the guy.

The last thing a workplace needs is an adversarial tension between people who have to work together every day. Hell, people create enough of their own tension without having to inject additional fears.

A few years ago I went to one of those sexual harassment seminars and they made it pretty clear that a woman should go to her boss first if she’s having problems with a guy at work. The idea of simply telling a guy to back off (a skill I happen to know women perfect before they’re through puberty) was off the table and escalation to a job-jeopardizing crisis was the first resort.

I find it stunning how so many women acquiesce in being treated as if they are friggin’ retarded at the institutional level, all in the name of equality.

I’m all for equality. I can sexually harass with the best of them. I do it at the grocery store and I did it when I worked at the hospital. I probably should have had a complaint filed against me. Ahhh but therein lies the difference! It’s not so bad if a woman harasses a man because if it bothers him.. how is he seen/perceived? Generally, a man takes it well, like a man.

True, this. If a woman comes on to me and I don’t like it (maybe I know that she’s a tease, a gold-digger, and a serial arsonist but I can’t yet prove that last one), I’m reluctant to complain, especially if she is even mildly attractive.

“A pretty girl came onto you and you’re complaining? What are you, queer?”

But let me come on to her, and it doesn’t matter how nice I am, how much I’m willing to back off and never mention it again is she tells me to, and it doesn’t matter if I’m Steve Stunning or the Crypt Keeper. If she wants me to lose my job, I will.

When I was a teenager in the late ’70s (not exactly ancient history), we were taught that if a boy you liked put his hand someplace you didn’t want it, you just moved it without otherwise acknowledging it was even there. Smart boys got the message and it never went any further; persistent ones were greeted with a slap and that generally drove the message home.

I’ve been “sexually harassed” more times than most neofeminists have had good dinners, and it’s never ONCE gone farther than between the man and I. And unless the man has some power over one (like a cop or boss) it never, ever has to.

A teenage boy made a list ranking the attributes of the girls in his class…and got arrested. This is making the rounds on Facebook. The story I linked by the Agitator is a bit heavy handed in its assessment of the boy, but it at least makes a larger point of how you can get “arrested” now for being offensive:

Any thinking person should agree. Yet they don’t – they put their thought-power to crafting impressive yet ever more vacuous arguments – laws.

I got tired of this “righteous mother” telling me what I can and cannot do, or say, or think. Telling me what I cannot do with my own dick and my own cash with another consenting adult!?! Ummm, WTF!?!

IMHO there isn’t a Vice law that should be maintained. I think the “line” is far less grey than many believe. Some person wants to ruin his life on heroin? His choice. Afterall, he’s allowed to ruin his life and health with alcohol, cigarettes and pound after pound of saturated fats! Choose your poison.

Me? I’ll take “all of the above”. (Oh, not heroin.., drugs haven’t appealed to me since I was twenty). But, in general, I want to taste and sample every thing this wonderful world has to offer. The good ones I’ll taste again and again. I don’t give them the right to select my poisons for me.

So I moved. To Hong Kong. Completely secular (in practice AND words unlike the US). Prostitution is legal (but the laws still need fixing). And the state pretty much leaves you alone as long as noone else is complaining. A perfect society? No, of course not.., plenty of flaws. But would I choose to leave HK and come home? Probably never. Too aggravating in the U.S.

My response to that argument is, of course, that I don’t think taxes should be paying for healthcare, either. Given the examples of the UK, Canada and Scandinavia, I honestly don’t see why so many Americans want to join the long line for substandard care.

The best hospital experience of my life was when I had anomalous tissue left over from my hysterectomy removed in the summer of 2000. That’s because I paid for it entirely out of my own purse, and was therefore treated like a customer to be pleased rather than a product to be processed. Compare that to the way my husband’s health insurance company treated me in 2009, after which I told him to drop me from the insurance and I’d pay my own way. When he changes jobs I’ll try the new insurance as long as it isn’t the same company, but as soon as I’m treated like a peasant I’m out and not one more dollar of my money will they get.

Incidentally, Brandy, I predicted that very attitude in a term paper I was hired to write way back in 1990. I predicted that as the US moved toward socialized medicine we would see more and more laws restricting behaviors that could affect health, and that once we got socialized medicine such laws would become both onerous and Draconian. Think the “War on Drugs” is bad? You ain’t seen nuthin’ like the war on consensual behavior you’re going to see if “universal healthcare” is inflicted on us. Not to mention all the people bitching when they find out that consensual but health-damaging behaviors which aren’t made illegal are considered “self-inflicted injuries” for insurance purposes, such as obesity, sports injuries, etc…

Then I guess it’s a good thing nobody’s pushing socialized medicine. Only military people have to put up with that.

People on Medicare have single-payer, which isn’t the same thing. With single-payer, the gubmint is your insurer, but the gubmint doesn’t own the hospital and the doctor isn’t a gubmint employee. Again, only the military with its VA hospitals has to put up with that.

Paying your own way is great if you can. Not everybody can.

Japan avoids both socialized medicine and single-payer by having very strict price controls.

As for cost: the money saved by not arresting, trying, and incarcerating non-violent drug offenders would probably pay for any health care reform anybody cares to enact. The taxes paid on drugs (and the now-declared income of drug providers) would be enough to pay for it again.

Dear Tim, for some reason the “evil” (eyeroll) system in the US allowed me to get all the treatment I’ve needed for post-traumatic stress disorder and panic disorder. HHHMMM…how can that be? Isn’t the treatment for these diseases never covered by insurance in the US (another wonderful blanket statement that’s ###***). Yes, there are a LOT of problems with the system. I’ve worked in the healthcare/health insurance field in the US for a long time and have seen 1st hand the problems with it. There’s a lot of work to still be done to fix things. But, it’s not as bad as too many make it out to be. I also love the 1’s who have NO health problems saying how horrible it is in the US. Yes, it’s nice when you don’t HAVE any health problems, isn’t it? Then you can talk all you want and never know what it’s really like to DEAL WITH ANY healthcare system. Please note I’m NOT saying this specifically about you as it would be an ASS-umption for me to say it as you might have health problems or might not. But, this whole topic reminded me of that mentality that those of us who DO have health problems hear about. What I love is the 1’s who arrogantly and cruelly say “I won’t pay for anyone’s problems” I’ve never heard once talk about how some GET diseases through no fault of their own. My PTSD is an example of this. It was caused by the evil actions of someone else that I had nothing to do with. I wish if these people would acknowledge this fact sometimes. I see it as in the neighborhood of those who have NO health problems saying they know what it’s like to deal with any healthcare system, etc. RIGHT!

Laura, the US health care system did NOT provide everything you needed! MDMA therapy to help with your PTSD wasn’t even an option, unless you doctor wanted to break the law. Only because you had employer-provided insurance were you able to avoid a choice between care and food.

During your time of unemployment, you had a hell of a time getting treatment for anything, and you are still in debt over your gall bladder surgery (and you had a job then).

If you keep getting things wrong, I’ll sic my cat PLUS Protestant snakes on you! LOL…on a serious note, when I have time I’ll post on here what all contributed to my debt plus how things really were insurance-wise when I was out of work.

I’ve lived in both the US and Canada, and after living in the US for fifteen years, I am simply baffled at why you put up with privatized health care. No one is “treated like a peasant” in a Canadian hospital. The highest monthly premiums I pay are $50/month – and I am fully insured. I choose my own doctor. You won’t find one Canadian willing to switch over to a private system. Not one.

The entire world’s health care systems are dependent upon the USA’s for profit system. Look at the last 50 years of medical advances and patents, and you’ll see that the majority of them have been pioneered in the USA. Once the USA eliminates for profit medical care, you can kiss future medical advances goodbye.

I had a doctor that was born in Canada and told me REPEATEDLY how she hated the healthcare system in Canada, that it was ###***, etc. and that she knew this from 1st hand experience with that system and also the experiences of her family/friends there.

Highly doubtful; their mandate is care, not research, as is the case with ALL nonprofit medical institutions. There simply isn’t enough extra money lying around to allow them to take doctors off the floor and put them into research.

OK. I remember many years ago that there was a problem with developing new drugs for rare diseases. There were so few people the drugs could be sold to that there wasn’t any profit in developing them. The solution was for the government to pay the companies enough for such “orphan drugs” to make it worth their while.

For PTSD, one of the most commonly-prescribed drugs is Zoloft. Zoloft is taken every day for years, and is still under patent.

MDMA is taken from one to six times, over the course of a single day to a single year, and the patent expired long ago. Guess which one is illegal?

The profit motive is powerful, and a lot of good can come out of it. But it isn’t always the only solution, and it isn’t even always the best.

I suspected that you knew the difference, but it doesn’t hurt to check. Also, it isn’t just you. For a distressingly large number of people, the omnipotence and benevolence of The Market is a matter of faith. In fact, I’m not going to be at all surprised if the use of the capital M comes into fashion.

I see a lot of public health methods innovation and multiple life-saving procedural optimizations devised by the VA. They have not done drug research themselves, though I would be astonished if they didn’t participate in third-phase clinical trials.

The VA has also sponsored third-party research into prostheses, and used it.

Excellent column, Maggie, right on target. I’d like to add a bit about your statement, “… it always annoyed me when men try to pitch sex as something the man ‘gives’ to the woman rather than vice-versa.” We guys seem to have a powerful innate wish to be desired sexually by women. And during the act, women are often “in the mood” and may say things that convey lustful feelings toward the man. BUT … at most other times, there’s a strong disparity between the levels of desire experienced by men vs. women. I’m guessing that almost every man has tried the tactic of saying “I’ve got what you want and need, Baby!” The less clueless men eventually figure out that women usually don’t respond well to such a tactic, and try others.

It all seems very unfair, but of course if the genders want to get into an Unfairness pissing match, women have a few issues they’d like to throw back at men. It probably all balances out, and even if it doesn’t, that’s life, and we men need to get over it.

Precisely. It always fascinates me when a member of one sex or the other whines about how much better the other sex has it; it reminds me of a child screaming that a sibling has a bigger portion of dessert when actually they’re the same and merely lie slightly differently on the plates.

If one sex really had it better than the other, there wouldn’t be any transsexuals aspiring to the sex which was worse-off.

Oh, but don’t you know, Maggie? Prostitution IS male violence to women! Well, of course, there’s a whole lot of it that doesn’t actually involve women, but apart from that, prostitution IS male violence to women.

Well, apart from the part of it that involves male clients paying women to subject them to pain and humiliation, and the part that doesn’t actually involve women, prostitution IS male violence to women!

Well, then there’s that part that doesn’t involve men, but that’s only a small part and apart from that and the part that doesn’t involve women and the part that comprises men paying women to subject them to pain and humiliation, prostitution IS male violence to….well, apart from the part when the women are the clients…male violence to women! Well, apart from the transgenders, that is….

Yeah, people embark on risky behavior ALL the time that fills emergency rooms daily: sports injuries (should we ban sports too?), car accidents (both alcohol fueled and not). Ummm, ban driving? Sadly, as sarcastic as I am being, the US nanny-state is acting this way in many ways.

Hey… Got an idea!! Most beds in hospitals are full of OLD PEOPLE! Let’s ban them!! Our taxes would plummet! Awesome. (Plus, my mother-in-law is a real pain in the ass!!). Solent Green got it right!

What a GREAT and FAIR blanket statement! I guess no one should talk to me then because I’ve had my religious convictions (the horror!) since my late teens. We believe without reason? Really? HHHMMM…all those scientists through history who have been Christians…I guess they worked without using their reason. RIGHT!

There are only two ways for people to interact: persuasion and force. Unfortunately there are those who think that if people cannot be persuaded to behave appropriately, force SHOULD be used. They’re little tin-plated dictators with delusions of grandeur, and the freedom loving people of the world would be much better off without them (and probably much less populated).

Maggie on Twitter

Boring but necessary legal stuff

All original content on this website (i.e. all of my columns, pages and anything else which I write myself) is protected under international copyright law as of the time it is posted; though you may link to it as you please or quote passages (as long as you attribute the quote to me), please do not reproduce whole columns without my express written permission. In other words, you have to say "pretty please with sugar on top" first, and then wait for me to say "okey-dokey".